>However, IMO, edlabel should stay simple ... all of the "special" cruft
>that's currently in disklabel(8) should go into the appropriate
>machine-dependent portions of the kernel, and the disklabel ioctl suite
>re-thought.
re-thinking the ioctl disklabels sounds cool. But relocating the
port-specific cruft from disklabel(8) into machine-dependent kernel
code makes it effectively impossible to "port" disklabel to label
a disks for one port from another machine architecture.
I'd actually like to see one (non-distribution) binary version
of disklabel that's capable of labelling a disk and installing
bootblocks for as many ports as practicable: i386, sparc, alpha,
pmax, ...
The rationale for this is to support installation by building a
ready-to-go disk for an architecture X machine on an architecture
Y machine. Jason's suggestion sounds cool, except for apparently
ruling out this installation route.